RQ is merged to pulp, pulp_file, pulp-smash, and devel. We also ported and merged pulp_ansible. This will be released with beta 3 of core coming out this Wednesday.
If anyone runs into any issues please reach out via IRC or the mailing list. On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > There's been a slight change in schedule. Now we believe the lowest risk > option is to merge today instead of tomorrow. > > We're finishing the latest rebase now, letting Travis tell us it's good, > and then merging it. We'll send a final note to the list post merge. > > Thanks to everyone for helping out! > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Dana Walker <dawal...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> +1 to advance notice, and +1 to @bmbouter and @dalley on the work, >> review/testing, and blog post. >> >> Dana Walker >> >> Associate Software Engineer >> >> Red Hat >> >> <https://www.redhat.com> >> <https://red.ht/sig> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:20 PM, David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Great work on this. Also, thanks for announcing this on pulp-dev well in >>> advance. >>> >>> >>> David >>> >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Robin Chan <rc...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> dalley has learned how to do some debugging already, so maybe he can >>>> look at doing a demo. Good suggestion, Kersom. It would be good to >>>> link to in a blog post - and also point out the good demo @bmbouter >>>> put together for pulp 2. >>>> >>>> great job @dalley & @bmbouter on the blog post! >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Kersom <ker...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> > At the proper time, a demo about the Pulp 3 task system will be very >>>> > beneficial. I am thinking about something similar what it was done >>>> for Pulp >>>> > 2. >>>> > >>>> > Looking forward for this. >>>> > >>>> > Regards, >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> All PRs have Travis showing green and all necessary LGTMs. The plan >>>> is to >>>> >> merge next Tuesday the 15th, which means it will be in core Beta 4. >>>> >> >>>> >> Yesterday, @dalley and I published a blog post which outlines the >>>> change >>>> >> for users along with a porting guide for plugins to port onto RQ as >>>> well. >>>> >> >>>> >> https://pulpproject.org/2018/05/08/pulp3-moving-to-rq/ >>>> >> >>>> >> Thank you to everyone for the help, collaboration, and energy on this >>>> >> significant change. >>>> >> >>>> >> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I've finished my review and resolved all of the 'blocker' issues >>>> that >>>> >>> were uncovered during testing. Overall, I'm highly confident that >>>> this is a >>>> >>> better path forwards than the continued use of Celery / Kombu. >>>> There are a >>>> >>> couple of outstanding edge cases to be resolved eventually, which I >>>> plan to >>>> >>> file as issues post-merge, but nothing serious or intractable. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> If there are no objections, I think it would be reasonable to merge >>>> this >>>> >>> code after this week's beta builds are published (after, in order >>>> to avoid >>>> >>> major changes during Summit / PyCon prep time). >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Thank you, Brian, for doing the planning and work needed to make >>>> this >>>> >>> happen. It was a lot of effort and is very highly appreciated. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:28 AM, Brian Bouterse < >>>> bbout...@redhat.com> >>>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Through several rebases, now all PRs are showing the RQ PRs on >>>> Travis as >>>> >>>> passing with pulp-smash. Several points of feedback have been >>>> addressed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If you're interested in commenting on these PRs or trying them out, >>>> >>>> please do. I hope to merge after the other taking system >>>> maintainers @dalley >>>> >>>> and @daviddavis have finished their testing/review and barring any >>>> other >>>> >>>> calls for delay or blocking concerns. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If there are any questions, issues, or concerns, please reach out, >>>> and >>>> >>>> we can talk through them. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Brian Bouterse < >>>> bbout...@redhat.com> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I put together a prototype and posted the PRs. I'm still working >>>> to get >>>> >>>>> Travis happy, but locally 100% of smash tests using these >>>> branches. It's >>>> >>>>> worked very reliably for me so far. There are no gaps in the pulp >>>> feature >>>> >>>>> set on top of RQ. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I hope people test it out and give some feedback. See the commit >>>> >>>>> messages for details on what was done. Here are the PRs: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3454 >>>> >>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/pull/72 >>>> >>>>> https://github.com/pulp/devel/pull/146 >>>> >>>>> https://github.com/PulpQE/pulp-smash/pull/960 >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Feel free to send questions here or to the PR. Any feedback is >>>> welcome. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> -Brian >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Milan Kovacik < >>>> mkova...@redhat.com> >>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> +1 I like RQ and I like http://python-rq.org/docs/testing/ esp. >>>> >>>>>> there's Fakeredis ;) >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> -- >>>> >>>>>> milan >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 6:58 PM, Brian Bouterse < >>>> bbout...@redhat.com> >>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> > Thanks for all the discussion both on list and on irc. After >>>> more >>>> >>>>>> > investigation, it sounds like there are no feature gaps, but >>>> we will >>>> >>>>>> > need to >>>> >>>>>> > incorporate this workaround to cancel a task that is already >>>> >>>>>> > running. >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > The feedback I've heard on the idea is that it's valuable and >>>> looks >>>> >>>>>> > feasible, but we won't really know until we prototype it a bit. >>>> >>>>>> > Based on the >>>> >>>>>> > technical outline in the previous email, I believe it can be >>>> >>>>>> > prototyped in a >>>> >>>>>> > day or two. I plan to do this soon, once I contribute to a few >>>> other >>>> >>>>>> > required-for-beta planning items first. I'll post my PR to see >>>> what >>>> >>>>>> > other >>>> >>>>>> > think of the change, probably next week. >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Daniel Alley < >>>> dal...@redhat.com> >>>> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >> I meant in the sense that, what is the aftermath when it >>>> comes back >>>> >>>>>> >> online, and is it screwed up in ways that cause side effects. >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:02 PM, Jeremy Audet < >>>> jau...@redhat.com> >>>> >>>>>> >> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> > RQ does not support revoking tasks. If you send the >>>> worker a >>>> >>>>>> >>> > SIGINT, >>>> >>>>>> >>> > it will finish the task and then stop processing new >>>> ones. If >>>> >>>>>> >>> > you send the >>>> >>>>>> >>> > worker SIGKILL, it will stop immediately, but I don't >>>> think it >>>> >>>>>> >>> > gracefully >>>> >>>>>> >>> > handles this circumstance. >>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> Nothing handles SIGKILL gracefully. Processes can't catch >>>> that >>>> >>>>>> >>> signal. >>>> >>>>>> >>> `kill -9 $pid` sends SIGKILL. >>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> If one is looking for a way to gracefully, immediately kill >>>> an RQ >>>> >>>>>> >>> worker, then SIGTERM may do the trick. Anecdotally, many >>>> processes >>>> >>>>>> >>> handle this signal in a hurried fashion. Semantically, this >>>> is >>>> >>>>>> >>> appropriate: SIGINT is the "terminal interrupt" signal >>>> (Ctrl+c >>>> >>>>>> >>> sends >>>> >>>>>> >>> SIGINT), whereas SIGTERM is the "termination signal." >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>>>> > Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> >>>>>> > Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>> >>>>>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> >> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>> >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> > Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> > >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev